Kalim Khan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 19 January, 2022
In the case of Balabhadra Nayak vs. State of Orissa (supra),
which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)Documents citing
Balabhadra Dash And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. [Alongwith Crl. ... on 22 February, 1991
Satrughana Sahu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 24 January, 2022
In the case of Balabhadra Nayak vs. State of Orissa
(supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court has held as follows:
Birupakhya Sahu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 24 January, 2022
In the case of Balabhadra Nayak vs. State of Orissa
(supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court has held as follows:
Madhuri Pradhan vs State Of Orissa .... Opp. Party on 18 February, 2022
This Court in the case of Balabhadra Nayak (supra) has
observed as follows while allowing an application for release of a
motorcycle of the petitioner who was not an accused.
State Of Orissa vs Bijoyaranjan Singh Bariha And Eight ... on 20 November, 1992
This Court in Balabhadra Das and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (1991)4 OCR 263 went to the extent of saying that the concerned file should be made available to the Public Prosecutor and the Court to examine if it would be beneficial to the society. The grounds indicated were that the accused persons had committed the offences "in course of agitation, Hartal and Gherao". The accusations certainly are not to that effect. Withdrawal from prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor. The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else, and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to someone else. The Government may suggest to the Public Prosecutor that the he may withdraw from the prosecution but nobody can compel him to do so. Though Section 321 does not lay bar to restrain the Public Prosecutor from tiling the application for withdrawal, he must apply his mind to see whether withdrawal is called for. The Court is no to re-appreciate the grounds which led the Public Prosecutor to reques withdrawal from the prosecution, but has to consider whether the Public Prosecutor applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The Court has a special duty in the regard as it is the ultimate repository of legislative confidence in granting or withholding its consent to withdrawal from the prosecution.
Anil Kumar And Anr. vs Ajai Butail And Anr. on 31 October, 1991
In Balabhadra Dash v. State of Orissa 1991 Cri LJ 2457, a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court was dealing with the scope of powers of the Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. One of the prayers made before the High Court on behalf of the accused persons was to quash the charge, it was observed by the learned Judge (in paragraph 5 of the report) that :
Diptiprava Sahu vs State Of Odisha ....... Opp. Party on 20 June, 2024
5. Further, our High Court also ruled in Balabhadra Nayak vs.
State of Orissa case reported in 2013 (I) OLR- 820 that :
Citizens Of Tirtol vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 6 March, 1997
This Court in Balabhadra Das and another v. State of Orissa and Ors.: (1991) 4 OCR 263 went to the extent of saying that the concerned file should be made available to the Public Prosecutor and the Court to examine if it would be beneficial to the society. Withdrawal from prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor. The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else. and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to someone else. The Government may suggest to the Public Prosecutor that he may withdraw from the prosecution but nobody can compel him to do so. Though Section 321 does not lay any bar to restrain the Public Prosecutor from filing the application for withdrawal, he must apply his mind to see whether withdrawal is called for. The Court is not to reappreciate the grounds which led the Public Prosecutor to require withdrawal from the prosecution, but has to consider whether the Public Prosecutor applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The Court has a special duty in this regard as it is the ultimate repository of legislative confidence in granting or withholding its consent to withdrawal from the prosecution.
M/S Trend Automobiles (P) Limited vs M/S Escorts Limited on 17 August, 2010
In Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and
others 199Crl.L.J. 2457 it has been held as under:
Niranjan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 August, 2010
In Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and
others 1991 Crl.L.J. 2457 it has been held as under: